On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
> this really what we want?
It should be 3.14, followed by a 3.141 release. ;)
René
pgprBybtBBJri.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Drew Parsons wrote:
>I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
>
>Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it
>seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0.
>
>
We had an ABI change with Sarge as well. Also, there is not that muc
Why not skip 4 all together and go straight to ...
Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though)
jokes ;-)
Bryan
On Friday 08 July 2005 09:15, René van Bevern wrote:
> On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
> > this really
Le Ven 8 Juillet 2005 03:42, Bob Proulx a écrit :
> (I am referring to those evil flash plugins,
> acrobat, etc. in addition to the Quake mentioned by the previous
> poster. But UT and Starcraft are more my style.)
games and flash are not the only one :
you cited acrobat (that is *really* helpfu
* Bob Proulx [Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:24:07 -0600]:
> > * why the different implementations?
> It is there for BSD job control functionality. That way you can say
> 'kill %1' and kill the background jobs by job control number. The
> standalone version does not know about the shell's list of jobs.
[Drew Parsons]
> I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
> though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
>
> I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
First of all, it was not only too late, the talk would have been
pointless anyway, like it
Hi,
I'm not having elements to reply immediatly and therefore won't be able
to respond right away. I'm going to take a look at the code and
recontact the upstream author in order to have a more precise idea of
the exact problem, since I missed some things apparently...
Thanks for your patien
On 08/07/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
> through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
> last week.
>
> Total number of orphaned packages: 222 (new: 12)
> Total number of packages
8.07.2005 pisze Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> If everything in main can be ported to pure64 there is little need for
> multiarch on amd64.
There's not only main, you know. Sometimes you need to run other
applications and the ability to run these makes the difference between
using the Debi
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)".
Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
that makes it harde
* Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050708 02:48]:
Hi Hendrik, all,
thank you for your responses. :-)
> Cited the wrong file for pthread_t definition :-/
> It's
> /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:typedef unsigned long int pthread_t;
:-)
> Still, no casting is needed
Yes, it's true that no
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:03:09PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Le Jeu 7 Juillet 2005 21:17, Josselin Mouette a ?crit :
>> > If we don't start the multiarch effort now, it won't be good for
>> > etch. Are we postponing this to the next release?
>>
>> I hope not ... I'm a quite happy owner
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to belittle the fact that the project stumbled on security support,
> but the press certainly did not have to rely only on web log entries and
> postings to public mailing lists. They could have asked questions of
> people. That is, in fact, what the
The following e-mail was NOT delivered.
Now that I receive over 1500 SPAMs per week I have been forced to change my
e-mail address. My new e-mail address is my first and last name followed
by @karlnet.com. If you have any questions please phone 614-822-5275 and
ask for my new e-mail address.
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-06-16 18:18]:
> There are currently over 200 orphaned packages, many of which have
> been on WNPP for quite a long time and some with RC bugs. I intend to
> request the removal of a number of packages in three weeks unless a
> package has been adopted b
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Loïc Minier writes:
> > I had that very same customization for alpha *and* for sh builds, I
> > didn't see the same customization for sh. Is it safe to assume gcc-4.0
> > will work at its best under sh too?
>
> the patch is curr
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 01:50:37PM +0300, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> I don't know much about the SH port either, except that it's been dead
> for years now. Not much point in trying to support it, I'd say.
Okay. It's been pointed out to me on IRC that the SH port is currently
seeing some renewed int
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:19 +0200, Bryan Gruneberg wrote:
> Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though)
Debian 2006.0
:P
--
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans.
GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:24:07PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > I was reading the kill man page today looking for some information for a
> > script I am writing. The man page mentioned that some shells have a
> > kill built-in command. On further investigation, I notic
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: apt-history
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Vittorio Palmisano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://redclay.altervista.org/archivio/python/apt-history/
* License : GPL
Descri
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 11:56:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote :
> Le vendredi 08 juillet 2005 ? 06:46 +0900, Junichi Uekawa a ?crit :
> > > > 1. It's linking with openssl, and claiming to be LGPL, which
> > > > I understand to be incompatible.
> > >
> > > It is compatible.
> >
> > Are you s
Well, since the thread I started has calmed down and since there's a lot of
people at HEL [1] with (probably) a lot of spare time in their hands that
would be better spent hacking than in the sauna here's my (revised)
wishlist for Etch.
I've added additional items pointed out in the thread (inc
On Jul 08, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll try
> to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
Make hotplug depend on udev (this simplifies a lot the hotplug scripts).
--
Hi!
> There are only 2 cases:
>
> Having 'dists///binary-/' in the path and not.
>
> You could have a Packages file with
> 'dists///binary-/' that is used as if it hadn't
> but that is rather unlikely.
>
> A good indication you are using a Packages file wrong is also if all
> the packages it re
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:07:20AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> If everything in main can be ported to pure64 there is little need for
> multiarch on amd64.
This is correct for amd64 which have 16 instead of 8 general purpose
registers. The other Architectures already had 16 or 32 registers in
3
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Suppose you'd like to generate a random pass by default after your
> daemon is installed. How should you get that pass to the user?
> Is it allowed to write it to a file in root's home dir?
Mail it to root.
--
.''`. ** Debia
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:35:34AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> With the recent article from Zdnet, does Debian need a press officer or
> www.debian.org/press? If harm is done to the reputation to the Debian
> organization by word or deed, should there be someone to respond to
> this? Any legitimate
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:27PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
> > > this really what we want?
> > >
I'm going to disagree with two points here.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> - _No_ bugs in base packages (well, at least no old bugs). Base system
> should be upgraded to latest upstream (forward patches!) this includes
> PAM, modutils...
> * Base packages sho
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:30:22PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > Suppose you'd like to generate a random pass by default after your
> > daemon is installed. How should you get that pass to the user?
> > Is it allowed to write
If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would
suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the
historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex,
bo, hamm, slink, potato, woody, sarge, etch). I see no basis for
distinguishing some Deb
Steve the deconstructionist wrote:
> > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)".
>
> Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions
> about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing
> that makes it harder to change later
#include
* Thomas Hood [Fri, Jul 08 2005, 04:16:01PM]:
> If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would
> suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the
> historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex,
> bo, hamm, slink, potato,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Then we would have
>
> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> (for example), etc.pp.
>
> Does the release team agree with t
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Does the release team agree with this change or do we need another
> consensus (or even a GR)?
Not speaking for the release team, but --
a) As has already been established, choosing the release number is one
of the only perks of the release managers.
b) Mentioning a
Drew Parsons wrote:
> It was the latest README in the new gcc-defaults. I imagine they
> weren't trying to be presumptuous but were just using it as a place
> holder. The document itself says it's not fully updated yet. One way or
> another, it'll have to be changed to something. Maybe they'll get
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Bob Proulx [Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:24:07 -0600]:
> > > * why the different implementations?
>
> > It is there for BSD job control functionality. That way you can say
> > 'kill %1' and kill the background jobs by job control number. The
> > standalone version does not know a
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Then we would have
>
> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> (for example), etc.pp.
Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second
release of
On 7/8/05, Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, old bugs may be the symptom that the maintainer is MIA, that the
> upstream maintainer is MIA, and similar things that we should of
> course track as well, but it does not mean that an old bug is "worse"
> in any way than a new bug (eveyth
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:50:35AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Then we would have
> >
> > Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> > release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> > (for example), etc.pp.
>
> Coun
also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
> Counting numbers start at one.
Not in the computer world.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud Debian developer and author: http:/
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:40:55PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 08, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll try
> > to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
> Make h
martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
> > Counting numbers start at one.
>
> Not in the computer world.
How do you explain RCS/CVS? The first revision after a checkin is
1.1. :-)
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.1854 +0200]:
> How do you explain RCS/CVS?
I am sorry to everyone who tries. Same applies to subversion.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' :proud De
On Jul 08, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll
> > > try
> > > to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
> > Make hotplug depend on udev (this simplifies a lot the hotplug scripts).
>
On 2005-07-08 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> (for example), etc.pp.
I hate letters in version strings, what about:
4.0etch release
4.1etch minor rel
People,
On 2005-07-08 Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Counting numbers start at one. The first update would be the second
> > release of etch. So really it should be 4.1 for the first release of
> > etch and 4.2 for the second release and so on.
>
> Except that we're computer people, and we start co
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> If Debian simply _must_ have decimal points in its release numbers then
> I'd suggest replacing the 'r' in update version numbers with '.'. Thus
> 9.1 would be the number of the first etch update.
As I remember, the original reason fo
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:07:20PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jul 08, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll
> > > > try
> > > > to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> Then we would have
>>
>> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
>> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
>> (for example), etc.pp.
>
> Coun
Le vendredi 08 juillet 2005 à 14:40 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Jul 08, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Feel free to add any other wishlists (or discuss any one of them). I'll try
> > to track the subsequent thread and keep the list current somewhere...
> Ma
Fully functional, unrestricted copy of the software. Get MORE results with LESS
efforts.
http://qqibho.gnkvjfg9vqyndzg.hyponymicln.com
I have no help to send, therefore I must go myself.
A straw vote only shows which way the hot air blows.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> For some time now (as in around a year) you can update your Packages
>> files by downloading only the differences (ed script format diff) to
>> your local file. Using that daily updates go down from the full 3+MB
>>
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:03:09PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Le Jeu 7 Juillet 2005 21:17, Josselin Mouette a écrit :
>> > If we don't start the multiarch effort now, it won't be good for
>> > etch. Are we postponing this to the next release?
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Sure, native code is always better. But that still won't help when
> sharing binaries from other distros to and from Debian. Because those
> other commonly available binaries of which people think are so
> critical will be 32-bit.
On Jul 08, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * was far too fragile, with races all over the place which make some
> things work correctly some of the time and not at all on the next
> reboot,
The solution to these problems is to use RUN rules (what once were dev.d
scripts).
> * req
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:07:20AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>> If everything in main can be ported to pure64 there is little need for
>> multiarch on amd64.
>
> This is correct for amd64 which have 16 instead of 8 general purpose
> registers. The oth
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
>> > this really what we want?
>> >
>> > I remember some of
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
Counting numbers start at one.
Not in the computer world.
You confuse counting with addressing.
The first byte is always the first byte, but it starts at address zero.
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
--
T
Johann Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi!
>
>> There are only 2 cases:
>>
>> Having 'dists///binary-/' in the path and not.
>>
>> You could have a Packages file with
>> 'dists///binary-/' that is used as if it hadn't
>> but that is rather unlikely.
>>
>> A good indication you are using a
On Fri 07/08/05 09:19, Bryan Gruneberg wrote:
> jokes ;-)
>
> Bryan
I think they should be versioned by the first number said by the
character their named after... so buzz should have been 4
--
--
| Josh Lauricha| Ford, you'r
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> Then we would have
>
> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> (for example), etc.pp.
>
> Does the release team agree wit
also sprach Helmut Wollmersdorfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.2106 +0200]:
> You confuse counting with addressing.
You confuse counting with labeling. Are we counting releases or
labeling them?
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <[
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:54:38AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.07.08.1750 +0200]:
> > > Counting numbers start at one.
> > Not in the computer world.
> How do you explain RCS/CVS? The first revision after a checkin is
> 1
On Friday 08 July 2005 17:05, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> (for example), etc.pp.
I second this.
Regards, Anders Breindahl.
pgp44xdzKBgIv.pgp
Descripti
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:22:12PM +0200, Anders Breindahl wrote:
> On Friday 08 July 2005 17:05, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Debian 4.0 for etch, 4.1 for etch stable release 1, 4.2 for etch stable
> > release 2, 4.2a for etch stable release 2 with a minor CD mastering fix
> > (for example), etc.pp.
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
> this really what we want?
>
> I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
> though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
>
> I suppose we should decide n
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 03:49:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> > [...]
> > - Remove _all_ out of date dummy packages! (see #308711 and other bugs!)
> > Note: Almost done by ftp-masters, some pending and needs to be reviewed
> > to
martin f krafft wrote:
You confuse counting with labeling.
No. You make a sidestep;-)
Are we counting releases or labeling them?
That's just a matter of taste.
IMHO a version number like $major.$minor.$fix is usual, understandable
by humans, and supported by a broad range of utilities et
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Dominic Hargreaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: liburi-fetch-perl
Version : 0.03
Upstream Author : Benjamin Trott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/URI-Fetch/
* License : Dual GPL/Artistic
De
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:03:32PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> * Package name: apt-history
> Version : 0.1
> Upstream Author : Vittorio Palmisano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://redclay.altervista.org/archivio/python/apt-history/
> * License : GPL
> De
Hallo Guillem,
* Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-09 01:52]:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 02:03:32PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > * Package name: apt-history
> > Version : 0.1
> > Upstream Author : Vittorio Palmisano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * URL :
> > http://re
Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote:
[snip]
> The releases of Debian could use '9.9.9-9' like it is used for packages.
> This should give enough flexibility. And if the release manager likes to
> jump to 7.3.0.21-5 for etch - why not?
Then 9.9.9 would be the upstream version. I hope Debian releases stay
Prescription medicine through an easy, secure and confidential environment.
http://klmwx.vagohedosnvlzev.impolishedkg.com
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
All leaders strive to turn their followers into children.
I take it as a man's duty to restrain himself.
#include
* Nico Golde [Sat, Jul 09 2005, 02:14:22AM]:
> sudo apt-history show upgrade
> 2005-07-09 00:12:03: upgrade gstreamer0.8-alsa=0.8.8-3
> 0.8.10-1
> 2005-07-09 00:12:03: upgrade libbonobo2-common=2.8.1-2
> 2.10.0-1
> 2005-07-09 00:12:03: upgrade gnome-des
On Jul 09, 2005 at 01:14, Nico Golde praised the llamas by saying:
> Ok, now I had a look on the log file.
> I think apt-history is different. If you want you can see
> the same info but the log is a typical logfile. You have to
> use grep and other coreutils to get for example the new
> version of
76 matches
Mail list logo
